Report No. 87 (2007) IACHR. Petition No. 733-04 (México)

• Year: 2007
• Report Number: 87
• Petition Number: 733-04
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Respondent State: México
• Alleged Victim: Luis De Jesús Maldonado

REPORT Nº 87/07 PETITION 733-04 INADMISSIBILITY LUIS DE JESÚS VÍCTOR MALDONADO MANZANILLA MEXICO October 17, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. On May 13, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission" or "the IACHR") received a complaint submitted by Fabián Omar Salvioli, Soledad García Muñoz, and Carolina Pineda Manríquez (hereinafter "the petitioners ") alleging that the United Mexican States (“the State”) is internationally responsible for violating Articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2), 2, 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(g), 25, 17, 11, 21, and 7(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention") as they relate to Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Luis de Jesús Víctor Maldonado Manzanilla. 2. The petitioners allege that, from the outset, the investigations conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office into the murders of Irma Elena Manzanilla Schaffer and Luis Maldonado Torres, parents of Mr. Luis de Jesús Víctor Maldonado Manzanilla, established a presumption of guilt on the part of Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla, placing him as the only person responsible for the murder, even though he had reported the robbery and assaults perpetrated by two people who were inside his parents’ home. They allege that in the course of the investigations he was forced to make a statement while in a state of emotional shock after the death of his parents and was arrested arbitrarily, violating his rights to personal integrity and judicial guarantees. They also allege that his right to judicial protection was violated in that the actions filed for appeal and appeal for constitutional protection after Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla was convicted by the first instance criminal judge failed to recognize the irregularities that occurred during the investigation and the violations of judicial guarantees committed during the criminal process, affirming the conviction and 40-year prison sentence. The petitioners allege that due to the amount of time that Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla has been in prison, he has been separated from his wife and children, thus violating his right to protection for his family, and that the financial costs his family has incurred in the criminal process have violated his right to private property. 3. The State alleges that the murder investigation was conducted with respect for the rights of Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla, who did not file any complaint regarding the supposed irregularities alleged, as he could have sought the intervention of the Office of the Inspector General for Justice of the Federal District to detect and remedy such anomalies or, if applicable, the intervention of the Office of the Internal Controller for the purpose of penalizing such anomalies. The State alleges that Mr. Luis Maldonado Manzanilla was not forced to make a statement, since he appeared voluntarily before the Prosecutor’s Office to submit his statement as a witness, but that after various pieces of evidence gathered were evaluated, it was determined that he was probably responsible for the crime. Additionally, the State denies that Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla was denied the ability to participate in the handling of any of the evidence-gathering procedures, in that he had an attorney from the start of the investigations. Regarding the conduct of the Criminal Process in the first instance, on appeal, and upon appeal for constitutional protection, the judicial guarantees of Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla were respected, his attorney was able to interrogate witnesses or experts, and he also offered more than 15 items of evidence. Thus, Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla did have the opportunity to defend himself. The State alleges that the petitioners have exhausted all the domestic remedies, but that it is clear that the petitioners are seeking to have the IACHR act as a fourth instance court to review the internal proceedings of jurisdictional bodies. 4. The IACHR concludes in this report that the petition is inadmissible, under Article 47(b) of the American Convention, because it does not describe events that constitute violations of rights protected by that international instrument. The Commission decides also to notify the parties of this decision, to publish the decision, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The IACHR received a petition on May 13, 2004 and assigned it number 733-04. On August 31, 2004 the relevant sections of the petition were forwarded to the State, allowing it two months. On October 29, 2004, the State asked for an extension to submit its observations. On November 16, 2004, the petitioners submitted additional information. On December 2, 2004 the State submitted information, which was forwarded to the petitioners on December 27, 2004. On February 17, 2005, the petitioners submitted information, which was forwarded to the State on July 20, 2005. On August 22, 2005, the State submitted information, which was forwarded to the petitioners on September 9, 2005, allowing a period of one month. On October 12, 2005, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the State on May 21, 2007. 6. On October 12, 2005, the petitioners submitted a request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mrs. Anette Alejandra Mejía Cerdio, wife of Mr. Luis Maldonado Manzanilla; his daughters Zoe Maldonado Mejía and Isabella Maldonado Mejía; and Mr. Luis Maldonado Manzanilla himself. On May 31, 2006, the IACHR asked for additional information from the petitioners. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that Mr. Luis Maldonado Manzanilla was sentenced to 40 years in prison for murdering his parents, Irma Elena Manzanilla Schaffer and Luis Maldonado Torres, through a criminal process that was full of irregularities. They state that on January 17, 2001, Luis Maldonado Manzanilla, the only son of the victims, went to his parents house after buying a newspaper and going to the drugstore to buy alcohol a the request of his mother, Irma Elena Manzanilla. Upon entering his parents’ home, he found two people threatening his father with a firearm and asking him to open the safe, as only he knew the combination. Upon opening the safe, his father was stabbed with a knife. The two people asked Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla to get more money, so he called a friend. The friend never arrived so the two attackers beat him about the head, causing him to lose consciousness. When he recovered, he called his wife on the phone and asked for help; the paramedics and police arrived right away and found the house nearly burned, Luis Maldonado Manzanilla nearly unconscious, and the corpse of his father. His mother was found stabbed to death in her room. 8. The petitioners state that despite his state of emotional shock, Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla was forced to make a statement before the Prosecutor’s Office, as a witness, despite medical reports that indicated his delicate psychological and physical condition at the time. They allege that after that statement, the Prosecutor’s Office considered him the perpetrator of the crime, which represents a violation of the right to a presumption of innocence and the right to a defense, as well as a violation of psychological integrity in that he was subjected to interrogation under these circumstances. 9. The petitioners allege that immediately after the murder, an investigation was started on an unofficial basis, in that the preliminary inquiry formally began up to fifteen hours and three minutes after the events. The preliminary inquiry was recorded with the number 22/103/01-01, conducted by the delegation of Coyoacán, Agency 22, of the Office of the General Prosecutor of Justice of the Federal District. The petitioners state that the Prosecutor’s Office agreed to a summary proceeding in which numerous procedures were carried out without allowing Luis Maldonado Manzanilla an opportunity to participate, even though the investigation of the facts pointed to him as the only person responsible for the murder of his parents. They further allege that various reports were initiated before being ordered by the Prosecutor’s Office, which also omitted the charge and indications that there were other people in the house, as well as the existence of cigar butts in various ashtrays, while neither Luis Maldonado Manzanilla nor his parents smoked. They allege that the knife used to kill Irma Elena Manzanilla Schaffer did not have any finger prints, nor did the box of matches with which they burned the body. The firearm used to kill Luis Maldonado Torres was not found in the course of the investigation. 10. The petitioners allege that on January 17, 2001, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered experts to conduct the Harrison test on Mr. Luis Maldonado Manzanilla. The day after the murders, January 18, 2001, Prosecutor Bernardo Batis Vásquez stated that according to the results from the Harrison test performed on him, Mr. Maldonado Manzanilla had shot a firearm. The petitioners indicate that the results of the Harrison test never appeared in the court file. They allege that on January 18, 2001, the record in the register of Expert Services was altered, noting cancellation of the Harrison test by the Assistant Director of Expert Services in chemistry and entering in its place the “atomic absorption” test. Therefore, there was no chain of custody for the test, which became evident with the alleged handling of the chemical tests by the expert. 11. The petitioners indicate that they filed an appeal for judicial protection seeking to discover the Harrison test. In the context of the appeal, the appeals Judge ordered the participating authorities to give Maldonado Manzanilla a certified copy of that...